On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 02:10:08PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Jaroslav Skarvada wrote: > > > According to the packaging guidelines [1] packages for F17+ must not > > It's probably a safe first start to insert a "new" in there. > > "... new packages for F17+ must not..." > > old stuff is oftentimes grandfathered. > I don't think this one was grandfathered.... My understanding of the Usrmove feature is that /bin /sbin potentially no longer exist. We create symlinks for backwards compatibility but at some level we need to be designing for those to go away. If the linker must be in /sbin/ then I'm not sure we should have gone ahead with UsrMove.... Not 100% sure what we need to do about that now. From a practical standpoint, removing the symlinks won't happen for a very, very long time. However, someone might propose that we do so to clean up cruft at some point in the distant future and if the linker still needs to be in /sbin/ then we'll encounter that breakagee then. UsMove could be reverted (FESCo decision). We could break ABI and recompile everything to use the new path and be unhappily aware that precompiled binaries for other Linux systems won't work on Fedora and vice versa (glibc + releng decision). We could grant an exception for the linker and somehow document that although UsrMove ha gone through, the compatiblity symlinks can never ever go away (FPC + FESCo decision). -Toshio
Attachment:
pgp4sQe4z6l_u.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
